During the October 2013 WTO TRIPS Council, India delivered the following intervention on Intellectual Property and Sports. The European Union, Jamaica, Mexico and the United States had requested this agenda item placed for discussion.
Intervention on IP and SportsMy delegation would like to thank the delegations of the EU, the US, Jamaica and Mexico for tabling an agenda item on IP and Sports, which we understand is a standalone item. We also thank the proponents for highlighting different innovations in sports and for organising the side event. While this agenda item may be of interest to a few IP holders in the field of sports , we do not comprehend the purpose of this agenda in the discussions in this Council. We have observed that instead of discussing the long pending agenda items which are of high priority to a majority of the Membership of this Organisation, the proponents seem to be focussed on new issues. Sustained efforts on the part of few Members to overburden the already long agenda will not only affect the seriousness of the discussions on other agenda items but would affect the credibility of this Organisation.
Mr Chairman, the TRIPS Agreement is a very comprehensive intellectual property treaty that has maintained a delicate balance between the interests of the right holders and the public interest. The Agreement has provided flexibilities so that the Members can frame their national IP policies according to their level of development. Thus the Agreement, based on minimum standards for the protection of all IPRs, recognises that ‘one size fits all’ is not an appropriate IP policy. Further, over the last few years we have seen attempts being made by some interested parties to push the TRIPS plus Agenda which would not only affect the development priorities of the developing countries but would create barriers in accessing health, education, technology transfer and other public goods. In this context we feel that the agenda item connecting IP with Sports may be an attempt to create higher international standards for IP protection to favour interested commercial entities.
Chair, we fail to understand the relevance of this issue to the mandate of the TRIPS Council and after listening to the interventions from the proponents, we feel that there is no need to discuss the issue further. We are convinced that the discussions are more relevant in WIPO